No, they’re not. Cecil’s column .
Does this have to be direct contact? I seem to recall reading here earlier standing over a grave would also cause uncleanliness. And that since one cannot know whether they may have accidentally walked over an ancient grave, best to assume that they had.
That presupposes those were real people, which is a bit of a stretch.
No kidding.
The best evidence at presense indicates that the Torah wasn’t compiled until the reign of Josiah. It goes without saying that Adam, and Noah never existed but it’s also becoming increasingly accepted that Abraham, Joseph and Moses never existed either. There may not have even been a David or Solomon.
There is definitely no evidence to support a hypothesis that these characters wrote anything in the Torah or that any of this literature existed in written form before Josiah.
I agree with you here, and I think the book by Friedman (who wrote the Old Testament) was particularly effective at illustrating this point.
I was curious as to something I heard recently-about Solomon I believe. I think the discovery channel is running a show about Ramses II saying that he was the ‘real’ Solomon or something to that effect.
Actually now that I think about it, maybe the show is going to try to demonstrate that Ramses II was the Pharoah mentioned in Exodus.
I can’t recall at present, as I just saw a brief commercial before going to work.
As usual, Diogenes is long on speculation and short on valid non-speculative cites. (Although the unbridaled conviction from which he offers his speculation sures sounds convincing to those uninformed, or those willing to defer to someone else’s “knowledge” in lieu of personal research)
I would only suggest that anyone having any interest on the subject should do their own research. The bible, as the source document, should be considered first. To be fair to Diogenes, non-biblical cites (with google as administrative assistant) should be considered. Still, a careful consideration of all of the information is necessary to come to an accurate knowledge.
At the very least, a serious student will recognize that pure (and often wild) speculation is most often presented as something akin to bible truth. (pun intended)
No. The reason aunt-nephew marraiges are forbidden is because they are mentioned as being forbidden in the chapter we are discussing. The reason that uncle-neice marraiges are permitted is becuase they (like first-cousin marriages) are not mentioned in this (or any other chapter) dealing with forbidden unions.*
*And before some wiseguy points out that father-daughter unions are also not mentioned in Leviticus 18 - yes, they are forbidden too. The Talmud derives the prohibition from the fact that if one’s granddaughters are forbidden, then one’s daughter is certainly forbidden.
Zev Steinhardt
Standing over a grave, being in the same room/building as a body and carrying a body (even if not in direct contact [i.e. acting as a pallbearer]) are other ways of contracting tumas mes.
Zev Steinhardt
So… I have to kill her first? Crap.
Again, my impression was that at least some of the patriarchs were polygamists. In such a context, this might mean that you can’t marry two or more sisters at the same time (thus making them rivals for your affections).
Also is there any provision for divorce in the OT. If not, that is if death was the only way to unmarry, wouldn’t having multiple wives be the only way you could marry your wifes sister while your wife still lived?
Deut. 24:
“If a man marries a woman and she displeases him because he found something unseemly, and he writes her a bill of divorce, and gives it to her, and sends her out of his house…”
Jacob’s example notwithstanding, Jewish law is very clear on this. One cannot marry his divorced wife’s sister while the divorced wife is still alive.
Yes, divorce is possible (see Dueteronomy 24: 1-2).
Zev Steinhardt
Thanks Zev and Captain,
But then polygomy is (or was) legit by jewish law (though not with 2 sisters)? Certainly its not done anymore, did later scholars decide it was a no-no or is it just a non-religious jewish tradition to max out at on wife at a time.
In the 11th century, Rabbenu Gershon issued a decree banning polygamy among Jews (and another one saying that a man can only divorce his wife with her consent), and because of his great reputation among the Ashkenazim, those decrees became accepted as halachic by the Ashkenazim. That wasn’t the case among the Sephardim, or the other Jewish communities, and Sephardi in places where polygamy was legal practiced it until recently. (And most of the Sephardi now live in Israel, where polygamy is illegal) I think some Yemenites still do. However, even when polygamy was legal among the Ashkenazim, it was never very common.
Polygamy is not practiced by the majority of the Jews in the world for two reasons:
(1) The ban of Rabbeinu Gershom (as mentioned by Captain Amazing.
(2) The Talmudic concept of dina d’malchusa dina (that the law of the land must be observed [inasmuch as it doesn’t contravene Torah law]). Since having more than one wife is not required, one can only have one wife if one lives in a country where it is illegal to have more than one wife at a time.
However, as Captain Amazing pointed out, it may still be (I’m not certain if it is, however) practiced by some Sephardim in countries where polygamy is legal.
In any event, even before Rabbeinu Gershom’s ban, the practice was never very common. None of the Rabbis of the Talmud, for example, are recorded as having had more than one wife at a time.
Zev Steinhardt
[QUOTE=WeRSauron]
I find chapter 18 of Leviticus (in parshah *Acharei Mot[/i
*If we want the society we live in to remain civilized, all of the things listed in the OP should probably be adhered to.
On the other hand, concerning Christian behavioir, does the Mosaic law (which all these taboos are a part of) apply?
The Apostle Paul said in his letter to the Roman Christians.
**“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and just and good.” **(7:12)
But, in chapter 6, he says:
**"…for ye are not under the law, but under grace," * ** (vs. 14) and in 1 Cor. 6:12: "*All things * are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."
Within the context of the verse “all things” would include the list of wrongs in verses 9 and 10, e.g., “…fornication, adultery, effeminate (gay?), abusers of themselves…”
What the apostle is trying to get across here is this: 1.) "you are under grace, not the law (i.e., you are bound by no legal obligation to keep the law, therefore, you cannot be lost if you transgress it), but 2.) it would be a good idea (“expedient”) to observe the law (i.e. where it concerns relations–expecially sexual relations–with other humans), otherwise you bring a reproach upon yourself, and God, because you are **“the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you…” ** (verse 19)
He confirms this in chapter 7, providing the remedy for avoiding unlawful behavior:
**"…to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have here own husband." ** (verse 2)
The prescription is: confine your sexual activity to your husband or wife. Period.
"…present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God." (Romans 12:2)
zev_steinhardt:
But that’s not a reason, that’s circular logic. Why do you suppose they decided that aunt-nephew marraiges should be forbidden while uncle-niece marraiges are OK? Perhaps that latter was taboo as well but got lost in the shuffle at some point.
But you’re forgetting one thing: we believe that the commandments were given by God. As such, only He knows why he forbade aunt-nephew marraiges and not uncle-neice marriages.
If you want to posit that the Torah was the work of men, then you certainly have a valid objection.
Zev Steinhardt
If it’s “understood” that the explicit prohibitions against male on male sexual relations applies to female homosexual relationships, why not use the same logic to say that it’s understood (implied) that aunt-nephew and uncle-neice marriages are equally forbidden?
That’s not understood, though. The prohibition against lesbian relationships comes from the beginning of Leviticus 18…“You will not follow the laws of Egypt, where you used to live, or the laws of Canaan”, and that’s seen as referring to polyandry or lesbianism.